Burger Burn

I found this hilarious. All the little Crybabies were mad at the mean old capitalist…

The CEO of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s has visited the fully automated restaurant Eatsa — and it’s given him some ideas on how to deal with rising minimum wages.

Eatsa, In the very heart of Liberalism, San Francisco: http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2015/08/31/fast-food-reinvented-eatsa-a-fully-automated-restaurant-opens-today/

“I want to try it,” CEO Andy Puzder told Business Insider. “We could have a restaurant that’s focused on all-natural products and is much like an Eatsa, where you order on a kiosk, you pay with a credit or debit card, your order pops up, and you never see a person.”

Puzder takes a highly conservative stance when it comes to the minimum wage issue — he’s written two op-eds against it in the Wall Street Journal.

“With government driving up the cost of labor, it’s driving down the number of jobs,” he said. “You’re going to see automation not just in airports and grocery stores, but in restaurants.” Entrepreneurs make their very living by solving problems and liberals demanding outrageous pay for low level work is one that is easily solved these days. “This is the problem with Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and progressives who push very hard to raise the minimum wage,” said Puzder. “Does it really help if Sally makes $3 more an hour if Suzie has no job?” Puzder has really warmed to the idea of robots and I have to say, I’m beginning to as well: “They’re always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case,” said Puzder of swapping employees for machines. Imagine the legal expense saved! Not to mention regulatory compliance. It’s as I have said most of my life… if you want job security, you had better work for yourself. No one will pay you better or work you harder. (RWN)

No one should be shocked that the Carl’s Jr. CEO wants to replace people in his stores. Anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of economics saw this coming, which naturally excludes those supporting the #FightFor15 movement. Bernie Sanders, we’re looking at you…

The Liberals will never see it coming. Their Thought Police/Agenda Uber Alles Filters will leave them totally blind.

But the fact that he’s so blunt about it? I tip my hat to you sir…

“If you’re making labor more expensive, and automation less expensive- this is not rocket science,” Puzder said.

“They’re always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case,” says Puzder of swapping employees for machines. “Millennials like not seeing people. I’ve been inside restaurants where we’ve installed ordering kiosks… and I’ve actually seen young people waiting in line to use the kiosk where there’s a person standing behind the counter, waiting on nobody.”

Leftists of course gotta leftist…

I guess Carl’s Jr saw what happened to McDonalds, WalMart, and the Gap when it came to a minimum wage hike. Also, I’m assuming this man had a calculator.

Of course, leftists could have read this man’s statements, attempted to understand an evolving economy and readjust their policy proposal. Instead, as they always do, they decide to fight against market forces through the demanding of government coercion. Just like when they fought against “right to work” (see those videos here). Just like when they fought against online media sharing. Just like when they, most recently, and incredibly ironically, oppose the emerging “sharing economy” like Uber and AirB&B (read more about that here).

That’s right. Self-professed socialists are attempting to SHUT DOWN THE SHARING ECONOMY. Let that sink in for a moment.

Why? Because to modern leftists, everything else takes a backseat to them getting theirs, period. It’s why Bernie’s promises of endless, mathematically impossible free sh** are so appealing.

Unenlightened Narcissism and “Entitlement” Greed are a very bad combination.

It didn’t work all that well for the Unions…

“This is the problem with Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and progressives who push very hard to raise the minimum wage,” says Puzder. “Does it really help if Sally makes $3 more an hour if Suzie has no job?”

But for more rote tasks like grilling a burger or taking an order, technology may be even more precise than human employees.

“They’re always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case,” says Puzder of swapping employees for machines.

But Puzder says that a restaurant that’s 100% automated would have one big plus for millennials: no social interaction.

“Millennials like not seeing people,” he says. “I’ve been inside restaurants where we’ve installed ordering kiosks … and I’ve actually seen young people waiting in line to use the kiosk where there’s a person standing behind the counter, waiting on nobody.” (Tea Party.org)

561f04d1a5af49e217009068_56799faa30c993aa9c000d8a

But conservatives are not immune. Listen, the minimum wage absurdity is obvious. But what do you think will happen if you try to punish trade? If you put more tariffs on China, or American manufacturers with manufacturing plants in Mexico? Businesses aren’t going to eat that cost. It will simply be passed on to you. When people demand government-mandated minimum wages that are not in line with market values, or they demand taxes on goods produced offshore to “bring back American jobs,” it is ultimately a tax on you, the consumer. As a general rule, consumers then migrate to where services are cheaper, and the American businesses go under. At which point they’ll promptly demand a bailout to continue the never-ending cycle.  (Crowder)

Detroit anyone? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Give Me Comfort or Give me…

Matt Walsh had a piece yesterday that was truly brilliant.

It was aimed right at the hearts and minds of the $15/hr whiner crowd.

I want to address this to my generation and younger. The dreaded Youth of America. My fellow Young People. I think I’m still a member of this club, at least for a little while longer. These days childhood seems to extend for many people into their late 30s, so I guess if you use the Extended Adolescence scale, I’m only about 12 or so.

Thirty is the new 13, as they say.

Just trying having a rational discussion with a Liberal, you’ll be lucky if they act like a 3 year old.

In any case, I’m not sure what exactly prompted it – might be a couple of Tweets I sent out about minimum wage this week, or maybe this person stumbled upon an old article of mine — but I received a dire and depressing message yesterday. I’ll show you, just because it makes for an excellent learning opportunity:

Dear Matt, you are uninformed about the minimum wage. I’m NOT saying anyone should just HAND me a six figure income but I DO have the right to live a decent, comfortable life and not go hungry. I am 19 and supporting myself on a minimum wage job and it is not easy. 15 dollar minimum wage would be enough at least that I could be comfortable. I wish you didn’t see life through your privileged lense, then you might understand…

-Jon

Wow. Jon’s email consists of only five sentences, yet still he managed to cram in the word “comfort” twice (and “privilege” once, for good measure). He wants comfort, he says. He has a right to it. And those of us who oppose an increased minimum wage, thus standing in the way of his comfort, are privileged. This is the cartoon world he’s been indoctrinated into; this weird, mystical realm where comfort is owed to him, but evil privileged folks prowl about looking to steal it away. That’s essentially the social theory they teach in college, I’m told.

You have no shot. The privileged have taken everything so you got nothing. So vote for a Democrat to have government take it for you! 🙂

The price: Your soul. Your Pride.  And sense of self-motivation or worth.

It’s terrible to see a young guy already so bored, distracted, and unambitious that obtaining “a comfortable life” has become his objective. And not even an objective he’ll pursue on his own, but one he wants the government to deliver effortlessly to him, like a candy gram left on his doorstep by a secret admirer. It’s a heart wrenching spectacle to behold, but not remarkable. It’s certainly nothing I haven’t heard or read a thousand times before. Still, it made me reflect, not on the effects of a federal $15 minimum wage — we don’t have to speculate about that anymore, we’ve already seen how it destroys businesses in real life — but on the tragedy of so many millennials, millions in my generation, wasting their early life overcome with a fatal obsession over, and desire for, this elusive comfort.

“Everyone deserves a comfortable life”? Is that really going to be our generation’s rallying cry? Is this our revolution? “Give me comfort!” Our ancestors demanded liberty or death, but we’ve slightly modified the slogan, it seems.

A Pew survey found that half of minimum wage workers are between 16 and 24 years old, and another 22 percent are 25 to 34. Then there are the workers near minimum wage (which means they’d also see a massive bump in pay if the federal minimum were increased to $15), and half of them are under 30. This is why I weep over the “fight for 15″ movement. Most of these people are young — their whole lives in front of them, a billion potential paths they could walk, an infinite number of opportunities — yet this is their fight? Fifteen bucks an hour wrapping burritos at Chipotle? That’s all they’re after? Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying they want too much. I’m saying precisely that they don’t want enough.

Indeed, an increased minimum wage will certainly make many of them comfortable — especially in the parts of the country where 1$5 an hour really translates to $19 or $20 – and that’s exactly the problem. My great fear is not that an enormously inflated minimum wage will unravel the economy, although it surely will, but that it might actually succeed in its goal of making a bunch of 20-something fry cooks “comfortable” in their jobs. This would be a profound catastrophe because these jobs are not supposed to make people comfortable; nobody is supposed to do them for years and years on end. You’re supposed to get in and get out. Move in and move one. You’re meant to use it as a platform on your way to something better, but the platform is not meant to be a comfortable place to set up camp and hang out for a few decades.

Comfort: a state of ease and satisfaction of bodily wants, with freedom from pain and anxiety.

As the young generation, we are simply not at the point in our lives where we should be striving for “ease and satisfaction.” Least of all should we be looking to derive ease and satisfaction from wearing name tags and microwaving Big Macs all day. These kinds of jobs are tiring and tedious and demeaning and they pay like crap, and that’s the point. They’re not comfortable, and they shouldn’t be.

Besides, a “comfortable life” is by no means a human right, nor is it a need. Comfort, for one thing, is subjective. I’m sure wide swaths of humanity would consider every American, even our poor ones, comfortable. A roof over their head and safe food to eat are comforts to billions. Add in air conditioning, Internet, cell phone, TV, car, and running water, and by their standards you’ve reached the pinnacle of human luxury.

When we say we have a right to a comfortable life, whose idea of comfort are we working with? The Ethiopian version or the lazy, pampered, materialistic American consumer version? And where is the comfort equilibrium? Once we all have apartments, cable, NetFlix, Wi-Fi, stocked refrigerators, and consoles with at least four video games? Is that when comfort will be achieved? But what happens when everyone realizes that standard of comfort? What if my greedy neighbor then goes out and gets another video game, and a faster Wi-Fi connection, and better food? Now, compared to him, I’m less comfortable. Should he be forced to give me some of his stuff to compensate? But what if that makes me more comfortable than him? Do I give it back? Do we just keep up this tug of war until we all fall dead in our comfortable houses and are buried in our comfortable coffins under six feet of comfortable dirt?

REDISTRIBUTION WEALTH IS AN IMPERATIVE! 🙂

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” goes the old Chinese proverb.

And for Liberals it feels good to give the poor a fish, or even better the “rich” person’s fish. Or a “free” or “cheaper” fish that looks like the “rich” person’s fish.

Problem is, then they don’t know how to fish. And if they never learned how to fish to begin with, then you have a person dependent on you for their fish.

Which, for Democrats, works for them. That’s what they like. They can control you, you are their slave if you can’t or won’t fish and they give it to you.

And you demand more! More Comfort! They are wealthy, they can afford it! 🙂

In this photo taken, Aug. 1, 2013, demonstrators protesting what they say are low wages and improper treatment for fast-food workers march in downtown Seattle.  (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)

Have we thought this through? Of course not, but you can’t totally blame us. We live, after all, in the era of birth control mandates, Obama phones, free-speech zones, trigger warnings, and anti-discrimination ordinances. We are told every day that we have the right to feel comfortable, or at least to not be exposed to any ideas or circumstances that would make us uncomfortable. We’re just following the cultural cues, and listening to the voices that tell us our aim in life should be the avoidance of physical and emotional discomfort, at whatever cost. But the voices are wrong, and they’re leading us far, far astray.

Comfort is not a right or a need or even an appropriate desire at this stage. Sure, we can think about comfort when we’re shopping for jeans or sweaters or beds, but comfort shouldn’t be our entire goal in life right now. A comfortable lifestyle is for the old and the retired, not the young and the hungry.

“Give me $15 an hour so I can be comfortable!” What a weak and timid and disappointing banner to march under. We’ve got a world to conquer, for God’s sake. We’re not patients in hospice care. Now is the time to be uncomfortable.

Let’s look again at Jon’s case, for example. He’s supporting himself, he says, which is great. But he used the word “job,” singular, which tells me he only has one. Why? Why not get a second or a third? Instead of waiting for the government to force his employer to pay him about double what he’s making, he could go out and do it himself. Two jobs equals double the income. I worked three at one point, just as many people have. I worked from 4 p.m. to 10 a.m. some days; that’s 16 hours from afternoon to late morning. It was painful and uncomfortable and exhausting. It was awesome.

A while ago, the last time I wrote about the minimum wage, I heard from a guy who told me he’s 22, single, living alone, and he works four jobs. Two full time, one part time, and one that’s more of a freelance gig he does in his spare time (whenever that is). How is it that some people complain they can’t survive on minimum wage, they can’t find a better job, they can’t find a second job, meanwhile that dude is out there with four of them? And, no, I assume he doesn’t want to live like that forever, but he’s living like that now so he won’t have to do it forever. He’s not worried about being comfortable.

So, a minimum wage hike? You’re setting your sights too low, my friends. Here you are, complaining that the government won’t force your employer to give you $15  an hour, when you could be putting a plan in place to make 10 times that amount in the next five years. Better yet, you could be figuring out what your passions are and devising a way to make a career out of them, regardless of the money.

I think you should be chasing something bigger. We all should. Truth, beauty, fulfillment, love, success. Not comfort. And while you hunt for this larger game, what’s the worst that could happen? You eat one meal a day? You go to bed hungry sometimes? You have to cut off the AC to save money? You end up pawning half your possessions to pay the bills? I’ve been there. It’s not that bad. It’s good, actually. It motivates you. It drives you. It teaches you to scrap by and survive and do what it takes.

Why worry about getting a raise at your crappy minimum wage job? You aren’t planning on being there forever, are you? You don’t think of minimum wage employment as a 30-year career option, do you? Right, I hope not. Forget, then, about asking the government to tell your employer to make you comfortable. Comfort is just about the worst thing that could happen to you right now, or to any of us.

Here’s what I can assure you: Minimum wage won’t kill you. You’re not going to die. I mean, you will die eventually, maybe soon for all I know, maybe tomorrow or an hour from now, but it won’t be from lack of income. The coroner report isn’t going to list “minimum wage” as cause of death, I promise you.

So drop this “comfortable” thing, OK? Remove the word from your vocabulary completely. In fact, take out a paper bag, shout “I have the right to live a comfortable life!” into it, tie it shut so the words are trapped in there, then douse it in gasoline and throw it into a volcano. Murder that awful, hideous sentence with terrific violence. Ask for more out of life, and listen to the answer.

Life might not offer you comfort, especially while you’re still working the late shift at Taco Bell, but there’s the potential for something so much better, as long as you’re willing to go out and get it.

I wish I had been that smart in my early years.
But I have little sympathy for the “comfort police”.
I got into big debt because of my own issues and trusting other people.
I didn’t cry to the government or blame “privilege”.
I had 2 jobs. I got up at 4am. I had a nap in the afternoon for an hour. I went to bed at 1:30am! Monday-Friday for  28 months straight.
Now’s that’s not comfortable.
But it it had to be done. No whining. No no crying. Just do it.
Just hard work.
Now, 10 years later I had a house. A good paying job and I still work hard just not that hard.
So suck it up. Turn off your internet. Turn of the Cable with HBO Turn off your cell phone. How many 100’s of dollars is that a month?
Do what has to be done.
It won’t be easy.
But 10 years from now, you’ll thank us all.

That is, unless 10 years from now you’re still flipping burgers and complaining that $15/hr are “slave wages” and that no one can live “comfortably” on that!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Save Yourself!

Last fall, voters in the Bay Area cities of San Francisco and Oakland followed Seattle’s lead and approved costly new minimum-wage mandates ($15 an hour and $12.25 an hour, respectively) for most businesses in the city boundaries. Now the bills have begun arriving, and some businesses can’t pay them.

The consequences of minimum-wage increases, at the historical levels studied in the U.S., are well known to labor economists. A summary of the research published last year by the Institute for the Study of Labor, and authored by University of California-Irvine economist David Neumark, found that each 10% hike in the minimum wage on the state and federal level has caused a 1% to 2% drop in youth employment. Similarly, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found an increase in fast-food prices associated with the same wage change.

Given the scope and schedule of these new minimum-wage increases, the impact on prices and employment may be even steeper this time. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, half of what San Francisco’s wage floor will be set at by 2018 after a series of increases that begin in May. Nationally, Congress phased in the last 40% increase to $7.25 over a three-year period; in Oakland, an almost-identical 36% increase happened overnight on March 1.

 
Photo: Getty Images

Businesses’ first line of defense against these labor-cost increases is an offsetting increase in prices. The magnitude is staggering: In Oakland, local restaurants are raising prices by as much as 20%, with the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that “some of the city’s top restaurateurs fear they will lose customers to higher prices.” Thanks to a quirk in California law that prohibits full-service restaurants from counting tips as income, other operators—who were forced to give their best-paid employees a raise—are rethinking their business model by eliminating tips as they raise prices.

Ironically, this change in compensation practices has reduced the take-home pay for some of the employees it was supposed to help: At the Oakland restaurant Homestead, the East Bay Express reported that servers are taking “a substantial pay cut,” earning a flat wage of $18 to $24 an hour and no tips instead of the $35 to $55 an hour they were accustomed to earning when tips were included.

Though higher prices are a risk that some businesses were able to take, others haven’t had the option. The San Francisco retailer Borderlands Books made national news in February when the owner announced that the city’s $15 minimum wage would put him out of business, in part because the prices of his products were already printed on the covers. (A unique customer fundraiser gave Borderlands a stay of execution until at least March of 2016.)

One block away from Borderlands, a fine-dining establishment called The Abbot’s Cellar—twice selected as one of the city’s top-100 restaurants—wasn’t so lucky. The forthcoming $15 minimum wage, combined with a series of factors like the city’s soaring rents, put the business over the edge and compelled its owners to close. One of the partners told me the restaurant had no ability to absorb the added cost, and neither a miraculous increase in sales volume nor higher prices were viable options.

These aren’t isolated anecdotes. In the city’s popular SoMa neighborhood, a vegetarian diner called The Source closed in January, again citing the higher minimum wage as a factor. Back across the Bay in Oakland, the Chronicle reported that some of the city’s businesses have been similarly affected. According to a board member of the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, 10 restaurants or grocery stores opted to permanently close this year alone as a partial consequence of the wage hike. Even the Salvation Army’s child-care facility is “scrambling to find ways to keep the doors open” in response to labor cost increases, according to the organization’s county coordinator.

Faced with convincing evidence of the policy’s failures, you’d think advocates would be chastened or apologetic. You’d be wrong: Ken Jacobs, who runs the University of California-Berkeley’s labor-backed Center for Labor Research and Education, chalked up possible consequences of new mandates to labor-market “churn.” Research that Mr. Jacobs co-authored predicted that the Bay Area hikes would be mostly cost-free. At a forum earlier this month where dozens of Oakland business owners fretted about their viability, representatives of Lift Up Oakland—the labor union-backed coalition that advocated for the wage hike—were not in attendance.

It’s probably too late to save other Oakland and San Francisco businesses. But it’s not too late for cities like New York and Los Angeles to heed the evidence before following their footsteps. (Michael Saltsman)

But “sticking it” to “rich” corporations is what Liberals like to use for their class warfare Divide & conquer. Doesn’t matter what the consequences are, they never do.

It makes their minions feel “righteous” and “angry”.

It gets them to vote for Democrats.

In the end the sheep slip their own throat, but they do it happily and will gladly gut themselves afterwards.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Middle Class Economics

So where do you get the money to allegedly pour into the poor to allegedly make them richer (which hasn’t happened BTW-there are now MORE poor people), rich people.

But in the perfect scenario if the rich are getting poorer and the poor are getting richer who gets squashed in the middle?

The Middle Class. 🙂

The big challenge for President Obama — and for Republicans seeking their own agenda to woo the middle class — is that middle-income economic fortunes are driven mostly by private employers. The government can raise the minimum wage, but it can’t make employers raise wages for workers already making well above that. It can give out targeted tax cuts, but these can’t have large effects on the average family’s income without getting really expensive. It can impose labor regulations, but it cannot overcome the fact that employers are powerful when many workers chase a small number of jobs.

So you can make them pay $15/hr but they can lay off a lot of people to do it. 🙂

Contrary to the Liberal hoary and class warfare battle cry, government does not create private sector jobs.

The White House had a telling spat last month with the Tax Policy Center, a center-left joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that produces estimates of the distributional impacts of tax proposals. Len Burman, the center’s co-director, who was a Treasury official in the Clinton administration, ran the numbers and found the president’s plan produced an average tax cut of just $12 for families in the middle quintile — a surprising result for a plan aimed at the middle class, and one that produced inconvenient headlines.

Inconvenient= Means they didn’t fit the Agenda driven truth. An Inconvenient truth, how ironic. 🙂

Treasury’s own numbers show the average middle-income family would get a tax cut of about $150 under the president’s plan. Whether $12 or $150, the average effects are small — much smaller than the several hundred dollars a typical family is saving this year because of falling gas prices, and much smaller than the raises Americans would get from a tight labor market that induces employers to offer higher wages. (NYT)

So that’s why Obama wants to raise gas prices! 🙂

It’s not just that he hates rich Oil companies in this country (in the middle east he’s just fine). That’s good to know.

“Many people in the middle class will get no benefit from the president’s proposal,” said Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center. “Among the middle class, it’s targeted at people with kids and second earners. Virtually no single middle class people without kids will get anything.”

Far fewer middle class single and elderly taxpayers would benefit from Obama’s plan.

Only 12.5% of single filers would get a tax cut. Overall, this group would see a $61 increase, because nearly 7% of middle class singles would see their taxes go up and that skews the overall average.

Among the elderly, only 10% would enjoy a dip in their taxes. But because many in this group would be hit with another of the president’s provisions — that would require estates to pay capital gains on appreciated assets — they would pay an additional $152, on average. (CNN)

So you have to be the politically advantageous “middle class” to get any sucar from this government succubus that has spent $8 Trillion in less than 7 years.

But you have to play it like everyone gets it. Like the $2500 reduction in Health Care Costs from Obamacare.

Mind you, the NFL Player making multiple millions a year is not the target. The target is Corporate America. The evil rich people who make jobs for people.

After all, socialism is about the Government largesse not Private Sector largesse.

So you have to be Agenda approved.

In socialism there are only 2 classes, The Elites, and the Poor and they don’t meet. That’s is the Utopia the Democrats want to achieve.

And since Liberals have no capacity intellectually to believe they can ever be wrong about anything, ever, they if they don’t succeed they will just keep trying because it will always be someone elses fault that they didn’t succeed.

Divide and Conquer, eventually. Because they only way they succeed is to destroy all methods that do succeed and leave you with no choice but to d it their way.

And that’s Obama and The Democrats in a nutshell. My ideas can’t succeed but I will prevent any other ideas from even forming.

Orwell would be proud of you, my son.

The Ministry of Truth (even Inconvenient ones) stands ready to defend your right to fail miserably but blame someone for it and make everyone believe it.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Whoops!

More unintended consequences from Liberal “help”.

SEATTLE, Wash. —

A Seattle-area nonprofit observed some workers recently asking for reduced hours, as they feared that their higher wages now put them at risk of losing housing subsidies.

Nora Gibson is the executive director of Full Life Care, a nonprofit that serves elderly people in various homes and nursing facilities. She is also on the board of the Seattle Housing Authority.

Gibson told KIRO 7 she saw a sudden reaction from workers when Seattle’s phased minimum-wage ordinance took effect in April, bringing minimum wage to $11 an hour. She said anecdotally, some people feared they would lose their subsidized units but still not be able to afford market-rate rents.

For example, she said last week, five employees at one of her organization’s 24-hour care facilities for Alzheimer’s patients asked to reduce their hours in order to remain eligible for subsidies. They now earn at least $13 an hour, after they increased wages at all levels in April, Gibson said.

“This has nothing to do with people’s willingness to work, or how hard people work. It has to do with being caught in a very complex situation where they have to balance everything they can pull together to pull together a stable, successful life,” Gibson said.
Gibson said she fully supports a minimum wage increase but was not surprised when her employees asked for fewer hours.

“The jump from subsidized housing to market rate in Seattle is huge,” she said.

Seattle Housing Authority told KIRO 7: “It’s important that the continuum of affordable housing options in our city and region allows for progression as people’s incomes increase. That needs to be addressed across the housing market so that people don’t feel they are in jeopardy of stable housing as they are able to earn enough to pay more of their housing costs.”

The amount of public assistance one receives depends on the income and size of the family. The scale is determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the qualifications are based on area median income.

Justine Decker, who is a full-time student at Seattle Central College, said she works part-time so she can still get subsidies for rent and child care.

“A one-bedroom can cost upward of $1,200. And so imagine paying that, and paying child care which can be $900 something dollars,” Decker said.

She said she doesn’t want to work full time, or she wouldn’t be able to afford market-rate rents. Decker said she’s in school to become a teacher and hopes to eventually become a principal, to make well over minimum wage levels to be able to pay for everything on her own.

Mohamed Muktar drives an Uber and also receives public assistance for housing. He said he would love to work more hours.

“If you can get more hours, I think you need to work more hours, so you can take care of your bills,” Muktar said.

Seattle Councilmember Nick Licata said he hadn’t heard of purposeful reduction of hours before.

“We need more information, for one thing. This is anecdotal,” Licata said.

Still, he said people need more options, especially after breaking the threshold that pushes them out of public housing.

“We do not want this to be an improvement on one side of the scale, and then decrease in living conditions on another,” Licata said. “We should not be using this as an excuse not to address the overall problem.” (KIRO)

The Union Label

Liberal Doublethink alert: UNIONS against Minimum Wage Increase!

Last week, the Los Angeles City Council approved an increase in the legally required minimum wage to result in a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour by 2020. During the months preceding the City Council’s decision, the underlying intellectual position in favor of the increase in the minimum wage was that everyone should receive a living wage. The arguments against raising the minimum wage revolve around the possibility that certain businesses such as restaurants will close based on their inability to pass along such wage increases to their customers. Opponents also argue that jobs will move elsewhere, whether it is another U.S. city or overseas if the minimum wage is increased.

The arguments presented above have not changed very much over the past fifty years. It is axiomatic that most interested individuals would like to see minimum wage discussions disappear because the overall community is more highly educated and lower wage jobs are the province of young individuals who will soon move into the marketplace of skills and ideas. Sadly, such is not the case.

Enter the union leaders of Los Angeles. Now, the Federation of Labor in Los Angeles is asking for exemptions from the minimum wage for companies where the workers are represented by a union. The position is that workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below the amount mandated by law. The underlying theory according to Randy Hicks, a leader of both the county Federation of Labor and the Raise the Wage coalition is ” “With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them. This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing.”

And now, the Mad Hatter enters stage left. Apparently, only a union worker should be able to work for a wage that is less than a ‘living wage’. And that union worker is apparently able to work for that lower wage and also able to pay union dues to support the crack union negotiating team working to procure or maintain his or her wages that are less than those required by the new minimum wage law.

In this Alice in Wonderland proposal by the unions, two identical restaurants serving the same food, hiring from the same labor force, located on the same street and owned by the same person could be operating under two different sets of laws with respect to the wages paid to their employees. Restaurant A, operating under a union contract, would be able to negotiate wages less than the minimum wage. Restaurant B, operating without a union contract, would be forced to pay a minimum wage higher than the wages paid by Restaurant A. Likely, Restaurant A would charge their customers lower prices than Restaurant B and drive Restaurant B out of business costing the employees of Restaurant B their higher paying jobs.

It does sound like the unions are looking for their own form of crony capitalism in Los Angeles. Who would think that the unions would accept and lobby for lower wages for their members in an effort to compete successfully with entities paying higher wages to their employees? What is the purpose of a union if it is attempting to successfully negotiate lower compensation for its members? Only in Wonderland, also known as Los Angeles. (Townhall)

LA Times:

Landmark plan to boost the Los Angeles minimum wage took another step forward Friday, as a panel of city lawmakers vetted a draft ordinance putting the pay hikes into law.

But a host of complex and divisive questions about the plan will likely remain unanswered even after the law is passed — including whether unionized companies will ultimately be able to opt out of the wage requirements if their workers agree.

“This is an ongoing process,” City Councilman Curren Price, who heads the Economic Development Committee, said Friday. “There’s still a lot of things to be resolved.”

Passing a Law to find out what’s in it is the latest fad trend in “transparency” these days. 🙂

When it takes up the proposed law next Wednesday, the full council is widely expected to pass the ordinance, which would gradually increase the citywide minimum to $15 hourly rate by July 2020. But because the pay hikes do not start until the middle of next year, officials could make changes to the law before the increases begin.

Political and Union maneuvering, just like on ObamaCare, where the unions were the ones that got the vast majority of the exemptions.

And of course, Unions are a Democrat money machine so they always get what they want.

So, yes, you could likely get Liberals voting to exempt Unions from “living wage” but still be Democrats who are fighting for it.

Orwell, is proud of you my sons.

But here’s the secret:

Labor leaders also pressed to include some controversial wording that could exempt unionized companies from the wage requirements if management negotiates a waiver with workers. Business groups have attacked that idea as a gambit to prod more companies to unionize.

Rusty Hicks, who heads the county labor federation, said that would provide union workers the flexibility to trade off pay for other benefits that might be more important to them.

“This isn’t a secretive way to incentivize workers to organize, or about paying union workers less than they deserve,” Hicks told reporters before the hearing. “This is about staying consistent with previous provisions and crafting something that will withstand legal scrutiny.”

Wanna pay less, well then you have to unionize and when you unionize the Union will screw you and your employees for Union Dues that will go the The Democrats!!

But the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and other major business groups criticized the proposed exemption as defying the stated goals of the minimum wage ordinance. They pointed out that labor activists had previously opposed a number of suggested exemptions for other kinds of businesses, saying no one should have a “subminimum wage.”

They were for it, before they vote against it! 🙂

If the exemption is approved, “it will replace the mantra of helping the working poor with hollow rhetoric that enables organizers to sign up more dues-paying members,” Chamber President Gary Toebben wrote in a letter to Price this week.

Ta Da!  More money for The Democrats. More Union control of the means of production.

Crafty, aren’t they.

Many labor activists have raised concerns about how L.A. will ensure that the new wage rules are enforced. City officials pressed forward Friday with a plan to create a new city division to crack down on employers who pay less than the minimum wage.

More Bureaucrats, more control…Gee, that never happens when Liberals attack! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Think Like a Leftist: Holiday Edition

First off, the very mention of Christmas is exclusionary so I can’t say “Christmas Edition” without being politically incorrect to start with. But I’m sure I will finish strong. 🙂

1. Christmas IS exclusionary and discriminatory. Isn’t everything about a Leftist just want to scream “discriminatory” at the drop of any hat (actually you don’t even need a hat). Christmas discriminates against any one who isn’t a Christian, you evil bastards. So like every -ism that a Leftist can come up with this is just another way that right wing Christians have an unfair advantage and we all know that Leftists are all about “fairness”. 🙂

And they hate “intolerance” and “discrimination” of any kind, under any pretense. 🙂

2. Redistribution Fairness. Redistribution of Wealth and making every mediocre poor is a Leftist Utopia  (look at Cuba). Everyone his the same. Everyone is Equal. Everything is Fair. So, when it comes to Christmas it is n’t fair that some kids get presents and some don’t. Screw the fact that there are charities for this kind of thing, they still don’t get the job done for EVERY child so we should mandate that at least 1 present per child should be given to the Government to be redistributed to those in need (and who vote for Democrats or who will vote for Democrats in the future) just to be “fair”. White people should give 2, just as reperations for slavery. It’s social justice, you now.

We can even open a new branch of The Government, The Bureau of Fairness. Yeah, that’s the ticket!!

Or here’s an even better solution…

3. But the quandary for The Leftist is that Christmas, as configured today, is fundamentally a Capitalist Consumer Fest. A virtual gorging of consumerism. And Leftist hate capitalism! It’s Greedy, it’s dirty, it’s unfair. So they have a problem.

Solution: Let the Government run it! That’s the Leftist solution for everything isn’t it?

You will barred from buying your own gifts and the Government will do it based on that grand and glorious Leftist principle:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Peace and Happiness shall reign on Earth! Fairness to All and to All a Good Night!!

Thus Christmas can finally be fair. It’s just that the poor, the illegal, and Democrat will get everything and those dirty, nasty, greedy right wingers will finally be on the perpetual naughty list and we’ll find a more socially acceptable use for coal– they’ll get it for Christmas presents but be barred from using it for energy production!!

4. And we’ll do away with that Old, Fat, White Christian symbol of Christmas, St. Nick, aka Santa Claus. I mean really, we’re celebrating White People! and The Morbidly Obese! Are you kidding me!

The Morbidly Obese are not “jolly”. They are a health hazard to everyone and should not be held up as a symbol of anything good.

Christmas Candy has to be replaced with Broccoli (because George W. Bush hated broccoli, of course!) 🙂

5. And cutting down a perfectly good tree just to stuff it in your Living room for a few nights, then throw it away! Are you kidding me!

Think of the harm to Global Warming. Think of the fire Hazard. It’s unsafe for all mankind and should be banned immediately!

Deforestation is not a joke!

As for artificial trees, well they use up valuable electricity and are also a waste of energy.

Christmas Ornament are exclusionary, I mean a Christmas Star or Angel at the top, I mean really? Think of all the other religions you’re excluding by that act you hateful person.

6.Santa’s Workshop. Some old fat white guy who enslaves elves to manufacture his toys for him so he reap the benefits of the profits and the adulation of the public. How evil is that. At the very least the Elves need a Union to represent them and they need a more diverse work environment. The racial balance is all wrong. The EEOC needs to do a thorough review of the conditions and then we need to get Unions in their to get the elves some fair working conditions.  Are they even getting $15/hr??

7. We need to move Santa’s Workshop because the North Pole is threatened by Global Warming and we have to think about The Polar Bears so this an environmentally sensitive area. Plus, being at the North Pole also affords him to much privacy and he needs much more oversight. Someone call Green Peace.

8. Reindeer. Really? That’s animal cruelty making them pull a sleigh for an old, fat, white guy. What do you think they are Black Slaves! No, we have to get PeTA in there to save the Reindeer.

9. Bah humbug! Scrooge was a nasty old capitalist slave driver anyhow.

Just about every year at this time, “A Christmas Carol’ shows up somewhere on TV, as do headlines about how one Republican or another is the modern equivalent of the tale’s greedy miser, Ebenezer Scrooge.

“The GOP’s sad Scrooge agenda.” “GOP Protecting Ebenezer Scrooge.” “Maher Likens Republicans to Ebenezer Scrooge.” “Republicans play the role of the stingy Scrooge.”

You have to wonder if these folks have actually read “A Christmas Carol” or spent any time pondering what Scrooge actually says and does. Because if you do, you come to realize that Scrooge more closely resembles a modern liberal than a conservative.

A major clue comes early in the story, when two men collecting for charity arrive at Scrooge’s office. After asking Scrooge for a donation to help the poor and needy, Scrooge responds: “Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigor?”

He goes on to say, “I help to support the establishments I have mentioned — they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”

Modern translation: I pay taxes to support the welfare state, why should I give money to you?

Turns out, that’s a decidedly liberal viewpoint.

Studies have consistently shown that big-government liberals donate far less money to private charities than conservatives. In his book “Who Really Cares,” Arthur Brooks notes that households headed by conservatives give 30% more to charity than households headed by liberals. Another study found that even poor conservatives donate more than rich liberals .

There are other facets to Scrooge’s character that line up better with modern liberals.

During that same conversation, Scrooge says it might be better for the poor who are unwilling to go on welfare to die “and decrease the surplus population.”

Cold and heartless, yes. But which side is always bemoaning overpopulation? From Paul Ehrlich in the late 1960s to environmentalists today, it’s been a fixation of the left, not the right.

Al Gore, for example, once urged making “fertility management ubiquitously available” to fight the scourge of carbon-producing people.

Also like most liberals today, Scrooge was clearly a religious skeptic and not a churchgoer. In fact, Dickens points out that one of the first things Scrooge does on the Christmas morning after his visits by the spirits is get on his knees and pray, and then go to church.

A 2012 study in Social Psychological and Personality Science concluded that “religious individuals tend to be more conservative.” A Gallup survey found that 55% of conservatives, but just 27% of liberals, are “frequent” churchgoers. And a Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey found that religious conservatives outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one.

Scrooge was also unhappy, a mood found more frequently on the left. Pew Research, for example, found that conservative were 68% more likely to say they were “very happy” than liberals, and that this “happiness gap” has existed since 1972.

Want more?

The fact that Scrooge was single and childless puts him on the left side of today’s political spectrum.

Writing in the New York Times, Brooks notes that 53% of conservatives are married, vs. 33% of liberals, “and almost none of the gap is due to the fact that liberals tend to be younger.” Conservatives also have more kids than liberals.

Finally, lest you think Scrooge was intolerant — the one sin the left still abhors — consider how he instructs his nephew on the virtues of tolerance.

“Keep Christmas in your own way,” he tells Fred, “and let me keep it in mine.”

QED. (IBD)

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell


Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler